Relation between Human Relativity and Divine Order?

Yes this is yet another philosophical blabidi-da ...so stop reading if your not into those things... he he



not quite there yet, the word 'Empathy' might be misleading... I probably need a mix of the words empathy, sympathy and compassion. So when I write EMPATHY, it means a mix of the words above. With other words.. all the puzzles haven't fallen into place yet, but I believe its getting there... ;)

I'm trying to make sense out of the relation between human relativity and religious truth (f.ex. Christian Beliefs). I personally believe there is a lot in relativity and subjectivity theories, however if you take the theory to far I personally believes it only ends up in nihilism or even complete absurdity.

The book of Genesis tells the monotheistic religions that the first thing God did was to make order our of nothingness or chaos, however how are we as humans supposed to relate to Order (God) when we ourselves seem to be chaos?

I have always used logic as my main medium to communicate my beliefs and faith. However, even a fool have discovered that logic will never suffice in our relativistic day and age.

Who cares whether you believe in Muhammed, Jesus, Hare Krishna or the pink spotted flying elephant residing on Saturn's third moon, logically....all is relative anyway. And the worst thing is, I actually agree. But only logically!! Not empathetically.

I believe empathy will replace logic as the main medium of communication in the future. Or, logic will become much more emphatically. Simply because old logic excludes empathy, empathy entails respect and dignity, and requires a genuine interest and perception from what or who you communicate with.

This may seem like a trivial discovery for many of you, but for me this has been a mind shattering experience for a nerd like my self. If this theory holds, I would have to change my whole theological mind set. Religion was never meant to be a message, but an experience Karen Armstrong once wrote.. And I believe she is right. I believe we have used logic as the medium of the message, and forgotten that empathy is the true medium of the experience.

With other words, I'm starting to believe that: Relativity is not logic, it ought to be empathy. Prayer is not logic, its empathy. Love is not logic, its empathy. Faith is not logic, its empathy. Life is not logic, its empathy. Mathematics is logic, however really advanced mathematics might be described as empathy.

"Credo"

Even though the quote by Loughborough might express a good thought and intention, I also believe it is important to recognize that the word "creed" does not have a unanimous definition within the Christian Family. Hence, I'm not sure Loughborough would be an opponent towards creating any "Creed," only using "creeds" as a tool of exclusion and stigmatization. It all depends upon how we define "creed," and then how we execute that definition into practice within a denomination.

I totally agree with Loughborough in regard to his 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th step toward apostasy. However, the 1st step I disagree with, "creeds" in and of themselves can be very helpful, and I might even claim creeds are necessary within any denomination. However, this depends upon how we define "creeds". Because, how we define a object, impacts upon how we express ourselves concerning that object. When it comes to the word creed, I believe it is really important to also know some of the various definitions used... I find Jaroslav Pelikans example of various definitions of creeds a good intro, this is taken from his book "Credo".

"1) Creed, Confession of Faith: In theological usage this term does not primarily mean the act of confessing the faith but a series of propositions in which the magisterium and Tradition have sought to provide a more or less complete formulation of the content of faith. This is also called a profession of faith or symbolum.


2) Confessions of Faith: Verbal confessions of faith can take on multiple forms, but there is one form that is privileged in certain formularies, called "symbols of faith" or "credo,"... which present the three "articles of faith" concerning, respectively, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

3) The creed is an exposition, in few but precise words, of that doctrine which all Christians are bound to believe.

4)Symbol, Symbol of Faith Beacuse of the Western custom of designating the confessions of faith as "symbols," the word "symbol" came into use in application to what in the Greek East was called "the teaching of the faith."

5) Creed: A creed is a concise, formal, and authorized statement of important points of Christian doctrine.

6) For hundreds of years Christians have been accustomed to understand by the word creed a fixed formula summarizing the essential articles of their religion and enjoying the sanction of ecclesiastical authority... an official, textually determined confession of faith.

7) Creeds of Christendom: Historically considered, creeds are convenient summaries arising out of definite religious situations, designed to meet urgent contemporary needs, and serving as tests of orthodoxy. Therefore they are inadequate in new crises and unable to secure uniformity of belief.

8) Confession of Faith: In confession, the Christian community gives its expression to God's saving action and fellowship with Christ... Through confession, faith in Jesus Christ takes a binding communal form, even as it includes personal confession."


With other words, I believe creeds in themselves is harmless, I actually believe creeds are a vital and important part of any denomination. However, our definition of its role within a denomination of faith, that, I believe, is the critical issue.

John Norton Loughborough (1832 - 1924)

John Norton Loughborough (1832 – April 7, 1924) was an early Seventh-day Adventist minister.

One well known quote by Loughborough appeared in an October 8, 1861 (29 years old...) Review and Herald article (now the Adventist Review), in which he was quoted speaking against the formation of creeds:

"The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And fifth, to commence persecution against such."[1]

References

1. ^ (1861-10-08) "Doings of the Battle Creek Conference, Oct. 5 & 6, 1861" (DJVU). Review and Herald 18 (19): 148. Retrieved on 2006-11-06.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._N._Loughborough

Stian Keyn and SDA, June 2007.

Don't forget, this very denomination was started exactly because there was no room for some misfits who disagreed with their cultural and historical "common" sense. SDA's very historical root is identified to be a denomination created for misfits to reason, study and share genuine faith together. Some exclusive bumps has hit our denominational history in the start and all the way to the present... but it will never remove our common CORE fundamental, "the bible is our only creed"... not our interpretations of the bible, but the bible. this is a very lucid and creative creed, it is a creed that encourages genuine faith, eternal study and love.

Dogma and forced interpretation of faith should never stand in the way for the inclusion, search, study and love leading towards Gods life and work through the bible, ourselves, others, and the world. We need to realize that our 28 fundamentals are interpretations of biblical facts, not absolute biblical facts!!! SDA must never serve as a conformist ‘black or white’ denomination. We have about 12 million official members, some even claim that the unofficial number is closer to the double. In my view, that anyone then proclaims that all 12-24 million members ought to be a complete ’28 Adventist’ or whatever you might call it, is and ought to be labeled absurd and unhealthy.

I believe... no, I know there is room for significant differences in beliefs within our community, however, I also believe there is a need for union and agreement. Faith ought to be our guide, and genuine faith is love, and love is God. Hence, one real fundamental belief ought to be that every member got a sincere and altruistic need to search and let the Biblical God work through them.

I realize my somewhat "anarchistic" and chaotic views might bring eternal headache to many a church administrator and leader. I'm not worried for a administrative chaos though, individuals like myself will probably always serve as a minority within any denomination anyways. Having said this, this minority will always serve as a extremely healthy part, because it serves as a counterbalance to the norm, never allowing apathy and callousness to get a grip. And if this "minority" actually became a majority.... Then I would only smile nervously and simply wait anxiously to see what God got up his sleeve for this bunch of beautiful maniacs ;)

With other words, I believe I am a part of an important counterbalancing SDA minority consisting of artists, cynics, geniuses, madmen, pastors and other misfits. And I truly know there is room for more. However, there are boundaries, boundaries that separates an Adventist from a Lutheran, Catholic etc... I do not believe that this boundary is defined by a "common" adventist sense, this boundary is much more lucid and concrete than that. This boundary is found by whether you have a genuine adventist faith, or put another way...whether you have a genuine adventist LOVE... whether you truly love Adventism... Whether you truly believe that God wants to enrich you through the Adventist denomination and use you to enrich others through the Adventist denomination, no matter how unusual and misfitted other adventists might view you, if you genuinely believe God has called you to be a part of the Adventist family, then welcome brother/sister. Welcome to one wonderful branch out of many other wonderful branches of God's family tree.

The only problem we need to face then is to describe what separates this denomination from any other... what is its significance, does this world really need adventists anymore, what is it we can contribute that is so special that it needs to identify itself different from so many others who proclaim God's love? However, this is a story that belongs to another article, but to conclude my own SDA status report; I'm staying, and I'm finally starting to stand up!!

Worship Industry - Brian McLaren

Muppets best song!!

Progressive Adventism

This is a SDA movement I probably am a part of, and I believe it is a movement most Adventist ought to read up on whether they disagree or agree. It consist of both SDA lay-people, Pastors and Professors. With other words, this is a movement with many highly respected SDA members as well as rascals like myself. It is perfectly alright to disagree with individuals within this movement. But I beg any Adventist to at least try to understand the main tenets within this movement before you make a judgment. No community is served by premature judgments and accusations.

I've posted some links that give a good introduction to its main thoughts, faith and vision:

1) Main website for "progressive adventists"

2) Wikipedias description

3) Article from Adventist Today